Editing Jury instructions (section)

=== Comprehending jury instructions ===

A significant issue with standard jury instructions is the language comprehension difficulties for the average juror. The purpose of jury instructions is to inform jurors of relevant laws and their application in the process of coming to a verdict. However, studies have shown that juries consistently run into problems understanding the instructions given to them.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bornstein |first1=Brian H. |last2=Hamm |first2=Joseph A. |date=2012 |title=Jury Instructions on Witness Identification |url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1380&context=ajacourtreview |journal=Court Review |volume=48 |pages=48–53 |via=EBSCO}}</ref> Poor comprehension is noted across juror demographics, as well as across legal contexts.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Amy E. |last2=Haney |first2=Craig |date=2011 |title=Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions |journal=Law and Human Behavior |volume=35 |issue=5 |pages=339–350 |doi=10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0 |issn=1573-661X |pmid=20936335}}</ref> Various linguistic features of legalese or [[legal English]], such as complex sentence structures and technical [[jargon]], have been pinpointed as major factors contributing to low comprehension.<ref name=":0" />

Simplifying jury instructions through the use of [[plain English]] has been shown to markedly increase juror comprehension.<ref name=":0" /> In one study of [[California]]’s jury instructions in cases involving the death penalty, approximately 200 university students participated in a research experiment. Half of the participants heard the original standard instructions written in legal English, and half heard revised instructions in plain English. Instructions were read twice to each group, and the participants then answered questions for researchers to gauge their understanding. The results showed a notable disparity in comprehension between the two groups. The group that received revised instructions demonstrated stronger understanding of relevant points such as key concepts, and the ability to differentiate between legal terms.<ref name=":0" />

In another California study, jury instructions were again simplified to make them easier for jurors to understand. The courts moved cautiously because, although verdicts are rarely overturned due to jury instructions in civil court, this is not the case in criminal court. For example, the old instructions on [[Legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] in civil cases read:<ref>{{citation |title=Spelling It Out in Plain English |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1099927168617}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|Preponderance of the evidence means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the evidence is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that the evidence on either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the party who had the burden of proving it.}}

The new instructions read:

{{Blockquote|When I tell you that a party must prove something, I mean that the party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is trying to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is sometimes referred to as 'the burden of proof.'}}

Resistance to the movement towards the revision of standard jury instructions exists as well. This is due to the concern that moving away from legal English will result in jury instructions becoming imprecise. There is also the belief that jurors prefer judges to speak in legal language so that they come across as educated and respectable.<ref>{{Citation |last=Tiersma |first=Peter M. |title=The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics |pages=251–265 |year=2010 |chapter=Instructions to jurors |publisher=Routledge |doi=10.4324/9780203855607.ch17 |isbn=9780203855607}}</ref>